tv [untitled] March 21, 2012 5:00am-5:30am PDT
-- items 10, lebron, and 12 are somewhat interrelated -- items 10, 11, and 12 are somewhat interrelated. >> item number 10. discussion and possible action to adopt a framework for land management and use relating to sfpuc lands not otherwise subject to specific policy guidance, including leases or permits for secondary uses on sfpuc land, disposition of sfpuc owned lands and acquisition of land by the sfpuc. >> i am here before you with framework documents. we have a long discussion last time. we have actually taken it out and done some outreach to the citizens advisory committee, to the barry water stewart and others. we have not made any changes. most of these we heard were generally that it formed a framework for decision making and it was not addressing any specific property. i want to make that clear. we were not addressing a specific property for these
plans at that point in time. >> question. >> yes, commissioner. >> under item 10, let's see what it is called here, the framework of land management used. is that the old one? under tamil lebron, do we have the new one? >> 11 is the realistic guidelines. that is where the confusion comes in. we called on both at the same time, last time. >> the framework is the umbrella. then the detailed guidelines? >> more procedural about how we actually right leases and permits. >> #10 is the new one?
>> yes, it is the framework document and it is the same as it was last time. and this item, my understanding is that this does not change policy of the commission, correct? >> there are existing policies in place and be listed those in the framework document. this does not change any framework policy that we currently have. >> the effect of adopting this? >> the effect of adopting this is that it is a decision making pool for you to lose -- for you to use. it leases permits. documents and staff will show, with criteria, such lines of those types of transactions.
the intent is it is a restatement of policy that already exists. >> yes. >> ok. >> i like to comment on that, too. i thought it was interesting to look at mr. richie's memo about surplus property. >> that was me. >> it was? >> but that memo that talked about surplus and those properties will be reviewed and evaluated. what i think the framework helps with is to look at it with an additional ones, our triple bottom line lands. it is not purely about economics. going back to commissioner caen's comment. it is hard to look at these
properties throughout the cookie cutter approach. we need to look at each one in a unique way. i appreciate the effort of this framework to at least have some guidance and cohesion around the different lenses and policies that do exist that we might be able to make a bit more of an informed decision that takes into account not just the dollars and cents of the project but any other value add or any other additional community benefits that might be part of the parcel. that is how i feel this from work as something to facilitate our decision making as a specific parcel may or may not come before us to understand the context of it. >> my expectation is the individual items to come in front of us for that kind of consideration. it would be within -- the discussion would be within this framework. we would talk about the objectives of disposition of land, how it meets the three criteria.
and this overall framework. it helps from our future discussions as well. -- frame our future discussions as well. >> could i have a motion? >> so moved. seconded. >> we do have some public comment. mr. caen. >> good afternoon. i want to commend and thank you all for dressing this issue. the framework is something that is helpful to the public. if it is confusing on these properties and to you is confusing to us. this is helpful in understanding the direction of this. thank you for addressing the san francisco reservoir. removing their roof is a
positive step and is welcomed by the community. i did want to mention a couple of things. the framework could use classification in trying to categorize all these properties, the resolution and the body of the document rex them into categories. number one is sfpuc land. everything under sfpuc jurisdiction. and everything within the disposition of sfpuc owned lands and acquisition. this -- this position section is meant to apply exclusively to sfpuc owned lands but when you get to the disposition section, the term owned has been deleted or was not there in the first place. the disposition section talks about sfpuc-owned land and the text says sfpuc-owned land but
the heading does not. if the intent is is only to apply to sfpuc-owned land, adding the word owned to that section would make sense. if that is not the intent, you'd want to remove that word from the resolution and elsewhere in the document so it reads consistently. also if the city and county of san francisco properties that are discussed on page one as being included in the jurisdiction of the puc and management including disposition, i would suggest adding a criteria to the disposition section which includes the city policies that are addressed in page 4. i do not see mention of incorporation of city policies in the disposition section under criteria. city policies do fall under that category. i know that it's confusing. that was not clear to me and i
went to make that point to you. thank you for your consideration. president moran: thank you. commissioner vietor: i would like to ask mr. carlin if -- to add the word owned on sfpuc land. >> that is on the title. >> the title, roman number ii. the disposition without the word owned. >> it says owned lands. >> the title should have the word owned by annett. unless there is something outside of the owned land definition. >> you cannot dispose of land in the city and county of -- that the city and county does not
own. maybe it was omitted because you cannot sell something that you do not own. whereas in leasing, elease other people's property for your own use and you leave your own property for other people's use. that is why there was -- >> it seems no harm and adding it. >> i want to explain why -- there's a difference between leasing and [inaudible] the second is again, the same response. to add under k. something that lists all these policies. many other commission policies will see something like and general city policies. >> on k on page 4. also establishing policies applicable to the measure of own -- all city owned properties. that applies to as. and the final statement. containing policies and
procedures governing the acquisition, disposition, leases, and permits. these are generally applicable to anything we do. >> right. >> does it make sense to say that? to add something that says any activities in compliance? >> the reason you would not make it a requirement that what you did was necessarily consistent with all city policies is because, sometimes land use is proposed which is not going to be consistent with a prior existing policy. and that is where your criteria for environmental review comes in as part of any requirement -- required environmental review. you have to evaluate whether the proposed use is consistent with the existing general plan and neither applicable policies and you are provided with that analysis and to decide whether or not you want to go forward
with activity that would include a general plan amendment. to say you were never acquiring property and use it for something that was not consistent with the existing land use, save for that sewer system improvement program, you would be confining herself in a way that i do not think you intend. >> you could change the policy. >> right. the framework is intended to bring the information to you so you would know when you were evaluating something whether it was consistent with existing city policy or not. you also have exclusive jurisdiction that allows you to undertake certain activities that might not be consistent with existing zoning. you would not want to unnecessarily constrain yourself in exercise that jurisdiction. >> make sense. >> we also have public comment from and i will have to get used
to what someone is writing. it is jan. >> you have a letter from her in your packet. >> my apologies. >> president, commissioners, general manager. i am here as a citizen. i had written a letter which i hope you have had a chance to read concerning the framework. we're grateful that there is going to be input, a framework around land use management for your lands in san francisco. we can better as citizens understand how they can serve the public as well. i think the framework is a good start. not a very complex subject. one of the considerations that it lacks is on page 7 of the draft.
the framework that is not -- does not require the puc to comply with plans and policies and in that way can deprive the community of a voice in that this position of lands in their own neighborhoods, in nearby locations, or even juror out the city. i have made a recommendation for a change to the language on under community criteria which is the last criteria on page 7. which makes good common sense, the public relations and good public policy. that language is your language as standing, community criteria, land may be sold or transferred when -- and i would like to offer an additional item, number five, that says the sale for transfer -- or transfer is not out of compliance with city plans and policies. thank you. >> thank you.
is there any other public comment? commissioners, what is your pleasure? >> i think we addressed item number five, right? her requested amendment. correct? >> for the owned. >> there was a discussion that the deputy city attorney was explaining. >> yes. i would like to introduce the single amendment around adding the word owned, roman number ii, sfpuc land. president moran: that is an amendment. do i have a second? all those in favor? opposed? the amendment carries on the item itself.
i do not believe it has been moved at. >> it has. >> it has? has it been moved and seconded? i lost track, thank you. any additional comment on this item? we have had public comment. all those in favor? opposed? thank you. >> item 11. approving real-estate service guidelines to take action for leases or licenses -- license certain uses of real property under the commission's jurisdiction. the new guidelines would supersede and replace sections 1.0 through 10.0. >> good afternoon. i am the real estate director, head of real estate services. i presented this to you last
month. i am here to ask if you have any questions. president moran: thank you. commissioners? >> a little over a year ago, we were having conversations about your office rightabout when you came on board. these are the kinds of new procedures that will assist you and your staff to streamline some of the smaller leases and decisions that need to be made. i recall that we were looking at staffing situations in your office. there were changes that were made. this is a logical progression of a staffing changes. am i correct? >> actually this is an overall peace in permit several. it does not have anything to do with staffing. it guides the staff. -- it guides staff.
one of the permits we issued or obtain, what we charge and the approvals for which we need to get, from the smaller items go to the general matter -- manager. the larger items go to calendar. anything over 10 years has to go to the board of supervisors for approval. it is a very detailed set of rules. >> it does make it more clear to staff, yes. >> the general manager can designate to you or you can designate to somebody in your office. >> the general manager under limited circumstances can designate for the smaller places. five years or less, a certain dollar figure or less. >> this does include an update of delegated authorities to the general manager. >> yes. in general it is things under $25,000 or less than five years.
>> it is $100,000 or five years or less. thank you. those are for market rate permits. anything that goes to a public agency or nonprofit organization, we still follow the 1999 resolutions that require commission approval. president moran: any other questions? >> i have a logistical question. one resolution -- which resolutions to the attachments, altogether, it is a group. i am looking at specifics. for example, what the general manager can and cannot do. that is not in the resolution.
>> it is attached to the resolution pending before the present -- to the commicommissi. >> these are approved and attached. the first of the result -- resolved. >> thank you. any additional questions? can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> moved and seconded. any public comment? seeing none, all those in favor? opposed? the item carries. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> item 12. presentation on the progress and feasibility assessment of the sfpuc urban agricultural pilot program.
>> juliette ellis. i am going to try to be brief since my counterparts did not do formal presentations. i am here to give you an update we have been doing on the urban agricultural pilot program per the last time we presented to you in october. as a reminder, in october 2011, the commission authorize the general manager to establish this urban agricultural pilot program on sfpuc lands in san francisco. the commission authorized the staff or the general manager to
conduct a feasibility assessment of the urban agriculture program on puc pilot sites. through that process we have identified two sides -- sites in san francisco. the bernal heights neighborhood, college hill reservoir. this site is 6000 square feet and is adjacent to the reservoir. the second site is in the bayview hunters point community in the southeast sector of san francisco. it is adjacent to the southeast sewer treatment facility. this again is 6000 square feet. since the commission meeting in october, the sfpuc staff have been working to determine the feasibility and logistics of moving forward with urban agriculture on these two sides.
we have been partnering with several organizations, including the san francisco urban agricultural alliance as well as garden for the internment to conduct a feasibility study of the sites looking at issues around some exposure, microclimate, average rainfall, agriculture restrictions, and logistical challenges that could pertain to each of these sites. in addition to the studies, we have been working with staff in the waste water treatment facility team to do soil testing to ensure that we have good information with regards to these sites and we spend a lot of time doing out reached to stakeholder groups, including the urban agriculture committee of san francisco, food advocates, a neighborhood community group, and neighbors in close proximity to the sites. based on these conversations, we have -- we are heading in a
direction with two concepts for each of the sides. for the site in burdo heights, we're in conversations with the san francisco unified school district, looking to partner with them and the site would potentially be an outdoor classroom for the surrounding schools in the area. the college hill site, there are three elementary schools within walking distance of that site. we have been meeting with the principles of the schools, having conversations with the school districts taking on those sites and having it be an outdoor classroom on steroids. when you look at the outdoor classrooms their building, many of them are small and include a few planters and the kind of thing. working with them to look at this being an outdoor classroom that paul revere school and to other schools could access and there is a staff person who would manage that. there would be additional news
for parents and community members when the school was not using that side. in the site in bayview hunters point, we have been in conversations with the east access group, the folks who do agriculture in bayview and are getting feedback. thinking about what makes sense for that site. there are several community gardens existing in that community. we are in conversation with the different organizations there to get a sense of does it make sense to have a traditional community garden on that side, or is there something we could doing on the continuum of supporting urban agriculture on that site? there is a place where people get compost or pick up different tools. we continue to have conversations with the stakeholders and the idea is we will be conducting open houses for that site in the next few months to facilitate feedback that would be incorporated into the request for proposals that
would be released. wrapping up, the next steps as we move forward will continue to solicit feedback regarding the pilot program and determining the best use for those sites. we will require that any operational partners use the most susceptible gardening practices and the work with the community throughout the process as they get the site ready and when they move into implementation. based on the early information we're receiving around the soil testing, that will happen on the sides depending on what kind of activity happens. we will come back to the commission and shortly thereafter, move forward with the rfp process. there are some community part -- partners who have been sending e-mail want to know what the
next steps are with the rfp release. the college hill site is moving on a faster track because we have a designated partner through the school district and the idea they would take that over coinciding with the school year. the process for the southeast looks like we will do the open houses in the summer and release the rfp in the late part of the summer, early fall. president moran: thank you. commissioners? >> the southeast side [inaudible] would that be affected? >> it could. we're looking at space outside the treatment facility and looking on the corner and -- on evans and south. the relationship we have with any operator that would be
getting -- getting a permit is it is remarkable. any activity what happened over the longer period of time. as larger plans for rendition of what that space looks like outside the sewer plant as we -- as construction happens, there will be a larger vision in process that will include community gardens in a permanent fashion if that is what ended up being envisioned for that area. >> great. i had one of the question. the school project sounds exciting. -- i had one other question. the school project sounds exciting. some of the value add that these projects could provide. whether it is the farmers' market or if that would be part of the rfp or if you are revet -- evaluating who that operator
might be based on that. >> definitely. the advocates have been helpful in making sure that we think through what the criteria should look like in the rfp with regard to additional community benefits. there has been conversation, everything from do we have a partnership with the food bank and everything that is grown is given there, or do we connect with the free farmers' markets existing in the city? there are free farmers' markets that are giving out food based on surplus that is being grown at community gardens that the city -- and we connect to that process? we have had conversations about how do you support kids and parents to use the food and will there be a cutting component or are there other value adds that could make this more practical and have additional benefit in the community? >> sounds great. thank you. president moran: any other questions, commissioners?
>> thank you. president moran: this is not an action item, but we do have some public comment. >> thank you. i am dana pearls, representing the san francisco urban ag alliance. i will be really brief. i would like to put in my support for this process. we have been very involved in talking about what is the different components for good rfp and the different uses that would be possible for these sites. i would encourage also especially for the southeast side that we push for an expedient process there. it is important to have as much community input as possible, keeping the site open not only to the possibility of community gardens but also to the possibility of using this land for more of a busi